Nine-hundred-and-sixty-two syringes. This astounding statistic represents the number of syringes distributed every day to drug addicts from our health centres.

The information was given early last week by Health Parliamentary Secretary Chris Fearne. A staggering 342,732 syringes are distributed annually. One-third of them – 111,800 – were given out at the Paola Health Centre alone.

These are official figures. One has to read them twice before the horror of these statistics sinks in and a wave of shock hits you as it should.

There is a background to this statistic. When the Aids epidemic was wreaking havoc worldwide among drug addict communities that shared used needles time and time again, the Health Ministry had decided to distribute free syringes, no questions asked, to addicts.

The ministry opted for the lesser of two evils: making it easier for drug addicts to getting their fix with a clean needle versus the risk of a full-blown Aids epidemic due to infected needles.

The risk, taken after the advice of experts in the field and without unwarranted trumpet-blowing by politicians, had the desired effect. It did not cut drug abuse but at least this practice curtailed the HIV and hepatitis outbreak.

That decision did not come to haunt the country since it was a fully informed decision taken with prudence and circumspection.

I cannot help but wonder: will these same attributes be shown in the process that can lead to a change in legislation affecting those who use drugs for personal use, particularly first-time offenders?

The basic, if not the only, question that should be addressed is how best to help victims of drug abuse. Taking a certain decision that gives them the perception that drug taking is perfectly fine and acceptable would only lead to disastrous consequences.

On the other hand, treating drug users as criminals and sentencing them to prison along with traffickers and all sorts of substance abusers is counter-productive, particularly if the prison sentence is handed down years after the offence was committed and after the person was rehabilitated and is leading a productive life.

There is agreement about the nature of the problem but, as always, the devil lies in the details of proposed solutions.

The search for a solution is made more difficult as there is confusion, at least on the popular level, of the meaning of the terms used. Decriminalisation and legalisation are two different things, but many consider and debate them as if they were one and the same thing.

The distinction has to be well explained and people have to be persuaded one way or the other. Bulldozing over the community on this sensitive issue will not work.

Trying to play the pseudo-liberal card or trying to pander to particularly vociferous lobbies – as occurred during the gay marriage and gay adoption debate – should not be the way forward.

It is very clear that there was an unannounced pre-electoral agreement on that issue, as it is becoming very clear that other pre-electoral deals were cut with land speculators and a whole list of others.

In view of this, it was legitimate for Auxiliary Bishop Charles Scicluna to pointedly ask on RTK whether the announced reform, which for Mgr Scicluna will benefit no one but drug barons, is the result of some promise made to someone somewhere.

The delicate nature of the whole issue came to the fore during an interview with Fr Hilary Tagliaferro published last Sunday in this paper. Fr Hilary has spent years campaigning for less severe drug laws when dealing with users.

However, he clearly states that he fears decriminalisation will open the door to more abuse and to the legalisation of drugs.

More voices have joined the chorus. Fr Emmanuel Cordina, head of the OASI Foundation, and Joe Sammut, head of the National Commission on the Abuse of Drugs, Alcohol and other Dependencies, also appealed for a cautious and prudent way forward.

Such statements by people who dedicated so much of their lives to helping drug addicts and all sort of vulnerable individuals should make one stop and think.

We have been told over and over again that first-time users should not be sent to prison. It seems there is consensus about the wisdom of such a position.

But we have also been told many times over that our courts do not, in fact, send first-time users to prison. Should we continue to leave the issue totally in the hands of the courts or should society be more pro-active?

Society does not dispatch alcoholics to prison but they are encouraged to seek treatment. Should drug users be similarly treated? Decriminalisation (and some say, legalisation) will undermine the drug barons, we have been told. If the drug market is liberalised, some say, there will be no scope for illegal activity regarding drugs.

This is not completely true. Cigarette smoking, alcohol drinking and gambling are perfectly legal activities, but there are still court cases of cigarette and alcohol contraband and cases involving loan sharks. The illegal market has perhaps shrivelled but it did not disappear.

Decriminalisation and legalisation are two different things but many consider and debate them as if they were one and the same thing

Pope Francis recently addressed the heads of world anti-drug agencies at the 31st International Drug Enforcement Conference.

“Let me state this in the clearest terms possible: the problem of drug use is not solved with drugs! Drug addiction is an evil, and with evil there can be no yielding or compromise. To think that harm can be reduced by permitting drug addicts to use narcotics in no way resolves the problem.

“Attempts, however limited, to legalise so-called ‘recreational drugs’ are not only highly questionable from a legislative standpoint, but they fail to produce the desired effects. Substitute drugs are not an adequate therapy but rather a veiled means of surrendering to the phenomenon.”

Years back, when Malta was faced by the scourge of drug abuse, the authorities had to decide whether syringes should be given free of charge to addicts with no questions asked. The right balance had been found.

The massive and pioneering contribution of the Church, together with that of professionals in the area, means that in the country there is vast expertise on the subject. The position of the Opposition is reasonable and balanced. The government is promising it will work towards consensus and the presence of Justice Minister Owen Bonnici gives credibility to that claim.

One augurs that, as in the case of free syringes, even today, another prudential compromise that will pass the test of time will be found and soon.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt